[sylpheed:37307] Re: Email standard for BCC behaviour

[Anton Shepelev]

Jeremy Cook:

> RFC 5322 muddies the waters a bit by saying:
>
>   In the second case, recipients specified in the "To:" and
>   "Cc:" lines each are sent a copy of the message with the
>   "Bcc:" line removed as above, but the recipients on the
>   "Bcc:" line get a separate copy of the message containing
>   a "Bcc:" line.  (When there are multiple recipient
>   addresses in the "Bcc:" field, some implementations
>   actually send a separate copy of the message to each
>   recipient with a "Bcc:" containing only the address of
>   that particular recipient.)
>
> As written, this is ambiguous, and seems to suggest that
> "other implementations" might actually keep the entire BCC
> line with all listed addresses.

The parentheses surround illustrative, explanatory, or
otherwise optional remarks that may be removed without harm
to the main text.  In the fragment above, it contains a
statement of fact rather than a standard requirement, so
that I see no ambiguity. The only requirement for Bcc: is
that it be absent form the messages sent to the To: and Cc:
recipients.  The standard does not regulate whether the Bcc-
ers themselves can see one another.

> Which violates the principle that BCC addresses "are not
> to be revealed to other recipients of the message."

I am sure that by "other recipients" the author means the
ones specfied in the To: and Cc fields. Thus intepreted, the
principle is observed.

By the definition and spirit of RFC, you are not only free
but positively encouraged to submit your comments to the
author!

P.S.: By the way, Jeremy, may I ask to please abstain form
      top-posting and use interleaved quoting?

      A: Because it messes up the order in which people
         normally read text.
      Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
      A: Top-posting.
      Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?